I wonder if the Democrats will react the same way they did when Christine Blasey Ford accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

It looks like the Democrats have the same situation on their hands because Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH), the man running against incumbent Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, said that “multiple women” have told him that Brown allegedly sexually assaulted them in the late 1980s.

Remember, even though Ford couldn’t tell us when and where the assault took place and those she named as witnesses couldn’t back up her claims, the Democrats praised her bravery and said she ought to be believed.

The release includes a lengthy statement from Laura Mills, a Canton attorney and former Renacci business partner and political donor. In the statement, Mills says the woman told her friend about the encounter as the MeToo movement unfolded. It occurred while the woman was alone with Brown, who was divorced at the time, through her work, Mills said. The friend then contacted the Renacci campaign, which referred the woman to Mills, the statement says.

The statement does not provide a date, a location, supporting evidence or identify the woman, but describes her as “a very credible source and a professional woman.” It comes a day after Renacci told reporters and editors with the Cincinnati Enquirer that he’d heard from “multiple women” with abuse allegations against Brown, while providing no additional details or supporting evidence.

The Brown campaign responded Thursday night by sharing a cease and desist letter its lawyer, Marc Elias, had sent to Renacci earlier in the day. It describes Renacci’s comments to the Enquirer as “false and libelous.”

“Just hours after a cease and desist was sent to Jim Renacci informing him that if he chose to continue making unsubstantiated and false claims about something that never happened he would face legal ramifications, now Jim Renacci’s former business partner and friend, in coordination with Renacci’s campaign, has put out a statement with nothing more than further anonymous and unsubstantiated claims,” said Brown campaign spokesman Preston Maddock. “Pure and simple this is character assassination by a failed and desperate candidate who every day reaches new lows. This will not be tolerated, all legal means will be pursued against Jim Renacci.”

INTERESTING. Because during the Kavanaugh/Ford circus, Brown said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rushed to get Kavanaugh confirmed because he is “afraid other things will come out.” Brown also stated “that women have reached out to his office and to him directly to recount their experiences with sexual assault.”

Then Brown claimed the White House “straitjacketed the FBI” by placing limits on the investigation into the Kavanaugh allegations. He proclaimed that the investigation couldn’t back up Ford’s allegations “because of what political leadership” wanted and described it as a “scam.” In his speech, he said (emphasis mine):

But I’m grateful that she did – even at great personal cost and risk. I believe Dr. Ford, and I’m grateful to her and to all the brave women who were inspired by her to speak out and share their own stories – including those who’ve written my office.

Please know: we see you. We hear you. Your story matters. And you make a difference.

The new rules from the Democrats place the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser, since this is a job interview and not a criminal investigation.

Will the #MeToo movement criticize Brown? Will Brown’s Senate colleagues who quickly sided with Ford side with his accusers?

I am personally going the same route as I did with Ford: the story is just words. We have no proof and anyone who can back up the allegations.

The only reason why I’m even writing this up is because of the double standard that exists in our society. Not only are sex crimes treated differently than other crimes, but the political stances the accused hold also determines how we treat the crimes.

We all knew this would come back and bite them in the butts and now it has. It will be interesting to see if Brown’s accusers receive the same red carpet the Senate gave Ford.

Comments

I this alleged victim can name the time, place, and conditions of the assault then it will be the opposite of the Ford accusation. I would then be interested to see what the Dems would say then. Especially the Harris/Horono duo!

I am personally going the same route as I did with Ford: the story is just words. We have no proof and anyone who can back up the allegations.

Sorry, I’m going the same route Brown did with Ford: words are all that’s needed. We don’t need no steenking proof or anyone who can back up the allegations. Now if Brown will renounce his former position, publicly apologize both to Kavanaugh and to the Republican caucus, and pledge to support due process from now on, then he can once again take advantage of it too; until then he has forfeited the right. Call it estoppel.

The statement is reasonable if one assumes that “survivor” refers to someone who’s actually known to have been a victim.

The ambiguity comes from the efforts of BELIEVE ALL WOMEN to conflate “survivor” with “accuser.” Since the meaning of “survivor” has become ambiguous, perhaps it’s time to go back to plain old “victim” again?

Me Too activists may think creating ambiguity is somehow a good thing, but it’s not as deliberately blurring the line between “accuser” and “victim” inevitably must also blur the line between guilt and the absence of guilt. Which no system of justice worthy of the name can do.

Blurring the line between “accused” and “guilty” isn’t even good strategy, as treating innocent-but-accused the same as found-guilty largely erases the ability of criminal justice to deter criminal acts. For if you wish to commit the crime and expect you’ll be treated the same whether you do it or not, then why wouldn’t you just go ahead and do it?

Narrator: Serious, sometimes fatal side effects may occur, such as lynching (see Emmett Till). Offer not valid in all 57 states. Offer is void in Ohio, Minnesota and Arkansas. Doesn’t apply to all women. Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Monica Lewinsky, Mary Jo Kopechne and Karen Monahan not to be believed. See your local Democrat Party for other exclusions and prohibitions.

It’s absolutely necessary that the FBI initiate an investigation into these charges, and that Brown not be permitted to participate in any election until after the investigation is completed, no matter how long it takes.

No we didn’t. Some of us, perhaps many, had a deep-seated suspicion they would suffer zero adverse consequences from the old rules protecting them while the new rules exposed Republicans. You’d almost think it was designed that way.

To think that #MeToo traces its Democratic roots to the witch hunts carried out against Palin, O’Donnell, and other conservative-women… conservative women. And subordinate and unconscious women, too. You’ve come along way, baby.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Announcement

LIN_SeventhWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!